Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 116 (MAD)

D. v. Vanitha VS S. Rajkumar & Other

2024-01-08

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, M.SUNDAR

body2024
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal Suit No.524 of 2016 filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem. Appeal Suit No.591 of 2020 filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.91 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem. Appeal Suit No.679 of 2020 filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2016 passed in O.S.No.92 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Salem.) Common Judgment M. Sundar, J 1. Captioned three appeals are listed under the cause list caption 'FOR RECORDING COMPROMISE'. 2. Captioned three appeals are listed under the cause list caption 'FOR RECORDING COMPROMISE'. 2. A thumbnail sketch of facts imperative for appreciating this compromise judgment / decree are that a suit in 'O.S.No.92 of 2009' [this suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'I suit' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] on the file of the 'I Additional District Court, Salem' [hereinafter 'trial Court' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was filed by one Mr.S.Rajkumar, son of Mr.S.Subramaniam, inter alia with a prayer to set aside a sale deed dated 10.03.2006; that 'O.S.No.91 of 2013 (O.S.No.6011 of 2019)' [this suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'II suit' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was filed by one Ms.D.V.Vanitha (wife of Mr.S.Venaktesh) also on the file of the trial Court; that another suit in 'O.S.No.92 of 2013 (O.S.No.6012 of 2019)' [this suit shall hereinafter be referred to as 'III suit' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was also filed by Ms.D.V.Vanitha, wife of Mr.S.Venkatesh on the file of the trial Court; that II and III suits were filed with prayers inter alia for specific performance qua immovable property; that after full contest, I suit was decreed by trial Court in and by judgment and decree dated 29.04.2016; that II and III suits were dismissed (after full contest) in and by a common judgement and decree dated 16.04.2019 by the trial Court; that 'A.S.No.524 of 2016', 'A.S.No.591 of 2020' and 'A.S.No.679 of 2020' shall hereinafter be referred to as 'I AS', 'II AS' and 'III AS' respectively for the sake of convenience and clarity; that I AS, II AS and III AS arise out of the judgement and decree in I suit, II suit and III suit respectively; that parties resorted to Adhoc Mediation and the parties have arrived at a settlement and terms of settlement have been reduced to writing by way of a 'compromise memo dated 03.03.2023' [hereinafter 'said compromise memo' for the sake of convenience and clarity]; that said compromise memo has been filed in this Court under cover of a common memo in I AS, II AS and III AS being common memo dated 11.09.2023; that parties and their respective counsel are present before this Court; that ranks of the parties vary in three suits and therefore we deem it appropriate to refer to the parties by their names. 3. Mr.S.Subramaniam, son of Mr.P.V.Sundaram Chettiar, represented by Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel, Ms.S.Kalyani, wife of Mr.S.Subramaniam, represented by Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel, Mr.S.Rajkumar, son of Mr.Subramaniam, represented by Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel, Mr.S.Venkatesh, son of Mr.Subramaniam, represented by Mr.C.Jagadish, learned counsel and Ms.D.V.Vanitha, wife of Mr.S.Venkatesh, represented by Mr.C.Saikrishna, learned counsel are before us. 'Indian Oil Corporation Limited' ['IOCL' for the sake of brevity] represented by its Divisional Retail Sales Manager is represented by Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel on record along with Ms.R.Renukadevi, learned counsel is before this Court. 4. All the aforementioned counsel and all the aforementioned parties submit in one voice in unison that said compromise memo has been signed on their own volition after mediation or in other words, all the counsel and parties submit that the Adhoc mediation adverted to supra culminated in said compromise memo and request this Court to pass a decree in terms of said compromise memo. 5. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to record that Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, son of Gopal Chettiar, who is fifth respondent in II AS and III AS has been given up by the appellant, who is present in Court and counter signed by the counsel representing the appellant. Endorsements made in the case file in this regard are as follows: Endorsement in II AS : Endorsement in III AS : 6. Aforementioned endorsements speak for themselves. It is submitted that Mr.G.Krishnamoorthy, son of Gopal Chettiar, was originally added as a party as he executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr.R.Dayananthan (second respondent in I AS and we are informed that he is no more i.e., since deceased) 7. AADHAR Cards of the aforementioned parties were produced before this Court and scanned reproduction of the same are as follows: 8. The narrative thus far captures the position that all the parties concerned and their respective counsel are before us. As regards IOCL, Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel submits that there is difficulty for the officer concerned to be present in Court as he is traveling and requests for dispensing with the presence of the officer concerned. Learned counsel submits that IOCL is a formal party and they were not a party to Mediation (as mediation was an inter se family issue) but learned counsel, on instructions, confirms that IOCL will stand bound by terms of said compromise memo. 9. Learned counsel submits that IOCL is a formal party and they were not a party to Mediation (as mediation was an inter se family issue) but learned counsel, on instructions, confirms that IOCL will stand bound by terms of said compromise memo. 9. All learned counsel and all parties submit that said compromise memo is a common memo in I AS, II AS and III AS and a scanned reproduction of the same together with memo dated 11.09.2023 under a cover of which the same has been filed in this Court is as follows: 10. In the light of the narrative thus far, captioned three appeals are now disposed of in terms of said compromise memo, which shall form part of the decree and obviously, parties will stand governed by clauses in said compromise memo. In other words, there will be a common compromise decree in the captioned three appeals i.e., I AS, II AS and III AS in terms of said compromise memo which will stand annexed to and form part of the compromise decree. There shall be no order as to costs.